DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 02/26/2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1 and 3 have been amended; claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 16, 19 cancelled; claims 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20 have been withdrawn.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/02/2025.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/02/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation is maintained in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections:
Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, the newly cited reference Roser (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0133383 A1) is applied to teach the amended limitation “a knife holder located at a rear of the operational portion, extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion, and configured for holding knives” as recited in the independent claim 1.
Specifically, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant(s)’ arguments regarding the previously cited prior art Glassberg – see details on pages 13-14 of the Remarks dated 02/26/2026, Applicant(s)’ arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the reference Glassberg is no longer applied in any of the rejections in this Office Action.
However, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant(s)’ arguments regarding the prior arts on record Spann and Constantino, Applicant(s)’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding the independent claim 1 – see details on pages 12-16 of the Remarks dated 02/26/2026)
Applicant alleged that Spann discloses a transportable medical cart for medical use and Spann does not discloses a cart working as a mobile kitchen cart assembly, see details on pages 12-13 of the Remarks dated 02/26/2026.
Applicant further alleged that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason or motivation to combine Spann and Constantino, see details on pages 14-16 of the Remarks dated 02/26/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “A mobile kitchen cart assembly” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to Applicant’s argument that mobile kitchen cart assembly (i.e., mobile cart assembly that is configured to be used in kitchen), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the mobile cart assembly of the prior art Spann is capable of performing the intended use in the kitchen, therefore, it meets the claim.
Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion that there is no reason or motivation to combine Spann and Constantino, the Examiner insist the rationale of the combination of Spann and Constantino is proper. Specifically, both Spann and Constantino relate to mobile cart structures and the integration of a work surface to improve functionality and efficiency. Therefore, in the instant case, the purpose of combining Spann with Constantino’s teaching is not defeated, for, at least, the benefits of creating additional workspace, increasing functionality, enhancing convenience and improving organization. To be more specific, the detachable chopping board enables selective conversion of the mobile cart into a workstation when needed, thereby preserving compact storage functionality while adding operational capability. Accordingly, the combination is proper. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”. As such, Applicant’s argument that there is no reason or motivation to combine Spann and Constantino, is not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“supporting element being foldable, pivotally connected to the cart body of the cart, and connected to the supporting plate of one of the two supporting stands to support the supporting plate in a horizontally expanding position” in claim 1 (lines 19-21). This limitation uses generic placeholder “element” (Prong A); the term “element” is modified by functional language “to support the supporting plate in a horizontally expanding position” (Prong B); and the term “element” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “supporting element” will be interpreted as “stand, frame, rod, or panel that is capable of supporting the supporting plate” and equivalents, as shows in the Drawings Figs.1-5 (see the supporting element 22 in Figs.1-5).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spann (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0096845 A1, previously cited) in view of Roser (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0133383 A1, newly cited) and further in view of Constantino et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0027966 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Spann discloses a mobile kitchen cart assembly (transport cart assembly as shown in Spann Figs.1-3) comprising:
a cart (cart 10, Spann Figs.1-3) including:
a cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) including:
a carrier portion (carrier portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (see the Instant Application carrier portion 111 in Instant Application Fig.1; therefore, the Instant Application carrier portion and the prior art Spann carrier portion are equivalent) having
an accommodating space (accommodating space, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (see the Instant Application accommodating space 113 in Instant Application Fig.1; therefore, the Instant Application accommodating space 113 and the prior art Spann accommodating space are equivalent) with a front opening facing toward a front of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann annotated Fig.3 below shows the accommodating space with front opening facing toward the front of the frame assembly 12); and
an operational portion (operational portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (see the Instant Application operational portion 112 in Instant Application Fig.1; therefore, the Instant Application operational portion 112 and the prior art Spann operational portion are equivalent) located above the carrier portion (carrier portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) and having
an upper opening (upper opening, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (see the Instant Application upper opening 114 in Instant Application Fig.1; therefore, the Instant Application upper opening 114 and the prior art Spann upper opening are equivalent) communicating with the accommodating space (accommodating space, Spann annotated Fig.3 below);
a cover plate (top panel 18, Spann Figs.1-3) detachably disposed on and covering the upper opening (upper opening, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) of the operational portion (operational portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (Spann Figs.1-3 shows the top panel disposed on and covering the upper opening of the operational portion; additionally, the hinge parts or pin parts 62 of the top panel 18 are removably coupled to the sleeve parts 64 of the frame assembly 12 as shown in Spann Fig.3, and see Spann Fig.5 for the detailed connection between the hinge parts or pin parts 62 and the sleeve parts 64; therefore, the top panel 18 detachably disposed on and covering the upper opening of the operational portion); and
multiple casters (four casters 55, Spann Figs.1-3) disposed at a bottom of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann Figs.1-3 show four casters 55 disposed at a bottom of the frame assembly 12); and
two supporting stands (two supporting stands includes the left supporting stand having the left extension panel 20a & the left side panel 14a, and the right supporting stand having the right extension panel 20b & the right side panel 14b; Spann Figs.1-3) respectively disposed at two sides (left side and right side of the frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) of the cart (cart 10, Spann Figs.1-3), each of the two supporting stands (each of two supporting stands includes the left supporting stand having the left extension panel 20a & the left side panel 14a, and the right supporting stand having the right extension panel 20b & the right side panel 14b; Spann Figs.1-3) including:
a supporting plate (left extension panel 20a or right extension panel 20b, Spann Figs.1-3) being foldable and pivotally connected to the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) of the cart (cart 10, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann Figs.1-3 and Par.0020 disclose each of the left extension panel 20a and the right extension panel 20b being foldable and pivotally connected to the frame assembly 12 of the cart 10); and
a supporting element (left side panel 14a or right side panel 14b, Spann Figs.1-3) being foldable, pivotally connected to the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) of the cart (cart 10, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann Figs.1-3 & Par.0050 discloses each of the left side panel 14a and the right side panel 14b being foldable, pivotally connected to the frame assembly 12), and connected to the supporting plate (left extension panel 20a or right extension panel 20b, Spann Figs.1-3) of one of the two supporting stands (left supporting stand having the left extension panel 20a & the left side panel 14a, or the right supporting stand having the right extension panel 20b & the right side panel 14b; Spann Figs.1-3) to support the supporting plate (left extension panel 20a or right extension panel 20b, Spann Figs.1-3) in a horizontally expanding position (horizontally expanding position as shown in Spann Fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Spann does not explicitly disclose:
a knife holder located at a rear of the operational portion, extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion, and configured for holding knives; and
a chopping board detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion; wherein the cover plate is configured to cover the chopping board
Roser teaches a cutting board system (Roser Fig.1):
a knife holder (tower 101, Roser Fig.1) (the tower 101 is knife holder because Roser Par.0051 teaches: “The knife will engage through the holster opening 113 and the push force of the knife on the rear wall 102C would obviate the force generated by the spring member 102E thus locking at least one tooth 119 of sliding holster with at least one toothed rack 103 of the tower 101.”, and as shown in Roser Fig.1) located at a rear of the operational portion (rear of operational portion, Roser annotated Fig.2 below) extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion (upper opening of the operational portion, Roser annotated Fig.2 below; it is noted that in combination, by adding the Roser tower 101 to the rear of the top panel 18 of Spann, in combination, the tower 101 would be located at the rear of the operational portion, extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion), and configured for holding knives (it is noted that the Roser tower 101 is capable of holding knives).
PNG
media_image2.png
848
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spann, by adding a knife holder located at a rear of the operational portion, extending upwardly beyond the upper opening of the operational portion, and configured for holding knives, as taught by Roser, in order to improve organization and accessibility. The modification keeps the cutting tools visible, fixed and secured in position, quickly retrievable, and prevents mixing with other instruments; therefore, reduce time searching through drawers and support faster workflow during use. Additionally, the tower with its unique property of rotating 180 degree makes it apt to use both the surfaces in use, as recognized by Roser [Roser, Abstract].
Spann in view of Roser does not explicitly teach:
a chopping board detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion; wherein the cover plate is configured to cover the chopping board.
Constantino teaches a mobile kitchen cart assembly (device 100, Constantino Figs.1-5) comprising:
a chopping board (chamber top 110, Constantino Figs.1-5) (it is noted that the chamber top 110 is chopping board as shown in Constantino Fig.2) detachably (Constantino Par.0058 teaches: “Pivots pins 140 on chamber top 110 fit within pivot notches 195 within the sleeve 175”, and as shown in Constantino Fig.5; therefore, the chamber top 110 is detachable) disposed in the upper opening (aperture 177, Constantino Fig.5) of the operational portion (aperture 161, Constantino Fig.5);
In combination, by adding the Constantino chopping board detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion to the Spann upper opening of the operational portion of the Spann transport cart assembly, in combination, Spann in view of Roser and Constantino teaches:
the cover plate (top panel 18, Spann Figs.1-3) is configured to cover the chopping board (chamber top 110, Constantino Figs.1-5) (it is noted that the primary reference Spann discloses the top panel 18 configured to cover the upper opening of the operational portion, see the Spann annotated Fig.3 above; therefore, in combination, by adding the Constantino chopping board to the Spann upper opening of the operational portion of the Spann transport cart assembly, the Spann top panel 18 would cover the chopping board).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spann in view of Roser, by adding a chopping board detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion, as taught by Constantino, in order to create additional workspace, increase functionality, enhance convenience and improve organization because the detachable chopping board enables selective conversion of the mobile cart into a workstation when needed, thereby preserving compact storage functionality while adding operational capability.
Regarding claim 3, Spann in view of Roser and Constantino discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Spann also discloses:
multiple hangers (two rear sleeve parts 64, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) are disposed on and protrude from an upper section of a rear (rear, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) (Spann annotated Fig.3 below shows the annotated two rear sleeve parts 64 are disposed on and protrude from an upper section of a rear of the frame assembly 12); and
the cover plate (top panel 18, Spann Figs.1-3) is configured to cover the upper opening (upper opening, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) of the operational portion (operational portion, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) and be hung at the rear (rear, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3) via the multiple hangers (two rear sleeve parts 64, Spann annotated Fig.3 below) (it is noted that the hinge parts or pin parts 62 of the top panel 18 are coupled to the sleeve parts 64 of the frame assembly 12 as shown in Spann Fig.3, and see Spann Fig.5 for the detailed connection between the hinge parts or pin parts 62 and the sleeve parts 64; and since the two rear sleeve parts 64 are at the rear of the frame assembly 12, thus, the top panel 18 be hung at the rear of the frame assembly 12 via two rear sleeve parts 64).
PNG
media_image3.png
763
906
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Spann does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the mobile kitchen cart assembly comprises two said chopping boards detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion and arranged side by side; and
the cover plate is configured to cover the two said chopping boards.
Constantino teaches mobile kitchen cart assembly (cart as shown in Constantino Fig.17):
wherein the mobile kitchen cart assembly (cart as shown in Constantino Fig.17) comprises two chopping boards (two chamber tops 610, Constantino Fig.17) (Constantino Par.0011 teaches: “The present invention is an about centrally pivoted chamber top having a cutting board on at least one of its surfaces”; therefore, the two chamber tops 610 are two cutting boards) detachably (Constantino Par.0058 teaches: “Pivots pins 140 on chamber top 110 fit within pivot notches 195 within the sleeve 175”, and as shown in Constantino Fig.5; and Constantino Par.0064 teaches: “As in other embodiments, chamber tops 610 are pivotally mounted in the sleeve”; therefore, the two chamber tops 610 are detachable) disposed in the upper opening (upper opening, Constantino annotated Fig.17) of the operational portion (operational portion, Constantino annotated Fig.17) and arranged side by side (Constantino Fig.17 shows the two chamber tops 610 arranged side by side)
PNG
media_image4.png
762
802
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In combination, by modifying the Spann in view of Roser and Constantino chopping board (as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) to include two chopping boards detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion and arranged side by side, in combination, Spann in view of Roser and Constantino teaches:
the cover plate (top panel 18, Spann Figs.1-3) is configured to cover the two chopping boards (two chamber tops 610, Constantino Fig.17) (it is noted that the primary reference Spann discloses the top panel 18 configured to cover the upper opening of the operational portion, see the Spann annotated Fig.3 above; therefore, in combination, by modifying the Spann in view of Roser and Constantino chopping board (as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) to include two chopping boards detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion and arranged side by side, the Spann top panel 18 would cover the two chopping boards).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spann in view of Roser and Constantino, by modifying the one chopping board to include two chopping boards detachably disposed in the upper opening of the operational portion and arranged side by side, as taught by Constantin, in order to allow the mobile cart to support simultaneous or staged operations, instead of forcing everything onto a single surface. Thus, the modification would prevent cross-contamination, increase functionality, keep workflow organized, and allow larger tasks to be handled without increasing permanent cart size. Thereby improving workflow efficiency, organization, and operational flexibility compared to a single work surface.
Regarding claim 4, Spann in view of Roser and Constantino teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Spann also discloses:
wherein the mobile kitchen cart assembly (transport cart assembly as shown in Spann Figs.1-3) comprises multiple storage boxes (containers 90, Spann Figs.1-2) configured to be stored in the accommodating space (accommodating space, Spann annotated Fig.2 below) of the carrier portion (carrier portion, Spann annotated Fig.2 below) of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3).
PNG
media_image5.png
718
828
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Spann in view of Roser and Constantino teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 3, Spann also discloses:
wherein the mobile kitchen cart assembly (transport cart assembly as shown in Spann Figs.1-3) comprises multiple storage boxes (containers 90, Spann Figs.1-2) configured to be stored in the accommodating space (accommodating space, Spann annotated Fig.2 below) of the carrier portion (carrier portion, Spann annotated Fig.2 below) of the cart body (frame assembly 12, Spann Figs.1-3).
PNG
media_image5.png
718
828
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Savage et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0191192 A1) discloses a movable cart. The cart includes a plurality of walls to define an internal volume and a top surface.
Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0196165 A1) discloses a knife guided cutting board comprising of a base of a cutting board and a knife guiding device.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 04/12/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights